G.R. No. 207246 - Roy III vs. Herbosa

Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Teves (June 28, 2011): The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution, “capital” in a public utility refers only to shares entitled to vote in the election of directors.
Gamboa Resolution (October 9, 2012): The Court denied motions for reconsideration with finality. A passage in the body suggested uniform application of the 60-40 requirement across all share classes, but the dispositive portion (fallo) remained unchanged.
SEC Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 2013: Issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement the dispositive ruling in Gamboa, providing that compliance with the 60% Filipino-foreign ownership rule must be tested against both (a) total voting shares and (b) total outstanding shares of a public utility.

Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Rule 65): Jose M. Roy III challenged SEC-MC No. 8 as a grave abuse of discretion, alleging it deviated from the Gamboa fallo and improperly treated obiter dictum as binding. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) was impleaded; other public utility corporations and shareholders were not.
Intervention and Responsive Pleadings: Various heirs of Gamboa, Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc., and Shareholders’ Association of the Philippines, Inc. intervened; they disputed standing, raised hierarchy-of-courts issues, and defended MC 8.
En Banc Decision (November 22, 2016): The Supreme Court denied the petition on procedural and substantive grounds—finding no standing or case or controversy, failure to implead indispensable parties, violation of the hierarchy rule, and no grave abuse by the SEC.
Motion for Reconsideration (January 19, 2017): Roy reiterated four grounds—transcendental importance, duty of judicial review, reliance on obiter dictum, and proper device for clarifying Gamboa.

No new or compelling arguments surfaced to warrant reconsideration.
All grounds had been exhaustively discussed and passed upon in the November 22, 2016 Decision.
The Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality; entry of final judgment ordered immediately.

Whether Roy III had the requisite locus standi and presented an actual case or controversy under Rule 65 to challenge SEC-MC No. 8.
Whether indispensable parties (other public utilities and their shareholders) were omitted, rendering the petition procedurally flawed.

Whether the SEC gravely abused its discretion in issuing MC No. 8 by contravening the final dispositive ruling in Gamboa.
Whether the Gamboa obiter dictum should bind the SEC and require uniform application of the 60-40 requirement to each class of shares.